This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the FAQ and RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate and remove the ads - it's free!

Re: Does the term redneck refer to a culture or race?

Originally Posted by Cochise

As I said, it's not an incidental correlation, but a matter of shared axiomatic values. It's the difference between "You have a mustache; you must have something in common with Hitler and Stalin" and "You advocate totalitarian government rule; you must have something in common with Hitler and Stalin." I'm not pointing out that you share the same favorite color; I'm pointing out that you share a lot of the same rhetoric based on your mutually shared axiomatic values. I'm also not saying that you're a white supremacist, but that you're more inclined to become one than a bleeding-heart ACLU member.

I think you have little idea of what I am likely to become.

"I condemn the ideology of White Supremacy and Nazism. They are thugs, criminals, and repugnant, and are against what I believe to be "The American Way" "
Thus my obligatory condemnation of White supremacy will now be in every post, lest I be accused of supporting it because I didn't mention it specifically every time I post.

Re: Does the term redneck refer to a culture or race?

You are classifying me as something I am not because Stormfront happens to agree with me on a thing or two.

Your argument is crap, there is no way to 'respond' to someone attempting to accuse you of being "more likely to be something that I will not be"

Your pompous attitude is ridiculous.

"I condemn the ideology of White Supremacy and Nazism. They are thugs, criminals, and repugnant, and are against what I believe to be "The American Way" "
Thus my obligatory condemnation of White supremacy will now be in every post, lest I be accused of supporting it because I didn't mention it specifically every time I post.

Re: Does the term redneck refer to a culture or race?

Except that what Cochise is showing are exact parallels between what self-proclaimed "white nationalist" psychos on Stormfront are saying, and what some posters here are saying.

Did you even bother to read the links, in conjunction with the quotes in Cochise's post?

First, no, sorry...not going to give any additional hits to the filth peddler that is stormfront nor am I going to go into the links on a work computer.

Second, whether or not people on stormfront are saying similiar things is relatively irrelevant and doesn't prove anything other than some may share broad line views with each other which speaks nothing to their motivations behind said views or the extent they think it should go to fix it as is the implication by him.

This is like saying that we should quote Osama Bin Laden and other Al-Qaeda members whenever someone said we should pull out of Iraq early or end the War on Terrorism or criticize Israel because obviously if they're saying the same things as terrorists we need to highlight it...I mean, for completely legitimate reasons that are in no way trying to imply that by making similar arguments that the people must be similar in all things.

Or perhaps it needs to be put in terms that actually affects you to realize why its an idiotic and rather transparently dishonest debate tactic. We could always shove it into an Israel thread where you and others are advocating for Israel to give its land over to the Palestinians and show where terrorists have said similar things.

You see, it's not an incidental correlation, but a matter of shared axiomatic values. It's the difference between "[Person X] dislike rock music; they must have something in common with the terrorist shooting at the Men over in Iraq and Afghanistan" and "[Person X] advocates Israel simply giving its land over to the Palestinians; they must have something in common with the terrorist shooting at the Men over in Iraq and Afghanistan."

I'm not pointing out that they share the same favorite color; I'm pointing out that they share a lot of the same rhetoric based on your mutually shared axiomatic values. I'm also not saying that [person x] is a terrorist, but that they're more inclined to become one of those people shooting at our Men over in Iraq and Afghanistan than to become a Tea Party member.

Its an invalid tactic meant to do nothing but smear and discredit through associated views

Last edited by Zyphlin; 06-09-10 at 10:29 AM.

Originally Posted by MrWonka

In fact, I would wager to you that within 10 years of today's date that stupid MAGA hat will be registered as a symbol of hate on par with a Swastika.

Re: Does the term redneck refer to a culture or race?

Originally Posted by CaptainCourtesy

I've done a ton of reading on the Civil War and took many classes on the time period in college. It's the most interesting time period in history, to me. The Civil War was NOT primarily about slavery. Slavery was a secondary force. The primary issues were regional diversity both in economics and in culture, political power differentials, and states rights. Ultimately, I always see the Civil War as a war between those that believe in a strong federal government and those who believe in strong states' rights.

As far as Lincoln goes, I always consider each and every action he made, and every word he said, that of the greatest politician we ever had. His primary goal was to keep the Union in tact and pretty much everything he said and did filtered from that. The Emancipation Proclamation was political, an effort to garner support for the war (which was already 3 years old and taking a major toll on the country) and to keep the Union in tact. Lincoln was a great President, and I admire his dedication to the country, but make no mistake. He was a politician through and through... and a great one. HE is more responsible, with his political maneuvering of keeping the border states from seceding than anything else.

Slavery was an ancillary issue.

Also, for those who are interested. secession is illegal (though revolution may not be). Madison himself, considered "The Father of the Constitution" agreed that secession was not a constitutional right in a letter to Daniel Webster, and the fact that the language of the Constitution differed from the language of the Articled of Confederation in the US NOT being a "confederation" "a league" or "a contract". with phrases like "in perpetuity" added. The Supreme Court agreed, and validated that secession was unconstitutional in Texas v. White.

I agree with you on almost every point here with the exception of Lincoln's motivations. I don't think Lincoln was as dedicated to the whole country as much as he was dedicated to Northern industrial interests. The tariffs he pushed on the South to help prop up Northern prosperity almost speak of a contempt for the Southern states.

However, you are spot on in your assessment that slavery was a secondary issue to the war.

Re: Does the term redneck refer to a culture or race?

Originally Posted by jallman

I agree with you on almost every point here with the exception of Lincoln's motivations. I don't think Lincoln was as dedicated to the whole country as much as he was dedicated to Northern industrial interests. The tariffs he pushed on the South to help prop up Northern prosperity almost speak of a contempt for the Southern states.

However, you are spot on in your assessment that slavery was a secondary issue to the war.

I'm curious, do you know how much was the increase on the tariffs? They had been in place and decreasing since 1816. I haven't found how much the increase was.

Re: Does the term redneck refer to a culture or race?

I'm curious, do you know how much was the increase on the tariffs? They had been in place and decreasing since 1816. I haven't found how much the increase was.

Actually, they had been fluctuating between 1816 and 1860. The real spike in the tariffs came in 1828 with the tariff of abominations which actually caused a rift between Jackson and Calhoun because of just how targeted the tariff was toward the south. In effect, it made export of cotton to Brittain so costly that the south had only one option: sell their resources at a markedly reduced rate to the north who then manufactured goods and sold them at exorbitant prices to the south. It was a truly abominable act on the part of congress to pass that tariff and that is where the rift between the north and the south pretty much became irreparable without bloodshed.

That tariff led to a series of heated arguments between the north and the south which culminated in the Nullification Crisis...pretty much a situation where the Southern states convened popular conventions and drafted their own legal philosophies regarding the Constitution as a contract between states and not a supreme law of the land, giving South Carolina, in particular, the right to nullify the tariff (which by this point had been redrafted as the Tariff of Abominations of 1832, reduced by 10%, leaving it still at a staggering 35%). In response, Jackson had Congress draw up the Force Bill which granted the PotUS the power to call up state militias and use the army and navy to put down insurrection. At this point, Calhoun left his post as VP and ran for senate. The conventions reconvened and passed rulings that nullified the Force Act. This is basically the stage that was set for Lincoln upon his inauguration. If he had really wanted to keep the peace and unity of the nation, he would have done something about the tariffs, but instead, he reaffirmed the tariffs, pleasing his northern industrial supporters but alienating the agrarian south. In fact, when South Carolina did secede, he was quoted as having said "But what will become of MY tariff"? No, Lincoln was not interested in peace and unity at all, but rather keeping his industrial northern supporters happy. Even in the 1800's, politicians were whores to their business interests.

The issue of slavery didn't even come into the picture in force until British Abolitionists, bereft of any reason to support the south now that the Tariff made trade with the south unprofitable, began to kick up a storm about slavery. The pressure to end slavery in the south came from abroad more than anywhere else and it was used to leverage other diplomatic issues, which Lincoln ultimately capitulated to because he couldn't handle a civil war at home without giving it some meaning. The slavery issue was the perfect excuse for prosecuting a war to keep the union intact but he didn't go freeing slaves out of his humanitarian interest in the plight of the displaced African at all.

Re: Does the term redneck refer to a culture or race?

You are classifying me as something I am not because Stormfront happens to agree with me on a thing or two.

Your argument is crap, there is no way to 'respond' to someone attempting to accuse you of being "more likely to be something that I will not be"

Your pompous attitude is ridiculous.

This isn't a counter-argument; it's a contradiction. Look at what I say to Zyphlin and see what you have to say to that.

Originally Posted by Zyphlin

First, no, sorry...not going to give any additional hits to the filth peddler that is stormfront nor am I going to go into the links on a work computer.

Second, whether or not people on stormfront are saying similiar things is relatively irrelevant and doesn't prove anything other than some may share broad line views with each other which speaks nothing to their motivations behind said views or the extent they think it should go to fix it as is the implication by him.

This is like saying that we should quote Osama Bin Laden and other Al-Qaeda members whenever someone said we should pull out of Iraq early or end the War on Terrorism or criticize Israel because obviously if they're saying the same things as terrorists we need to highlight it...I mean, for completely legitimate reasons that are in no way trying to imply that by making similar arguments that the people must be similar in all things.

Or perhaps it needs to be put in terms that actually affects you to realize why its an idiotic and rather transparently dishonest debate tactic. We could always shove it into an Israel thread where you and others are advocating for Israel to give its land over to the Palestinians and show where terrorists have said similar things.

You see, it's not an incidental correlation, but a matter of shared axiomatic values. It's the difference between "[Person X] dislike rock music; they must have something in common with the terrorist shooting at the Men over in Iraq and Afghanistan" and "[Person X] advocates Israel simply giving its land over to the Palestinians; they must have something in common with the terrorist shooting at the Men over in Iraq and Afghanistan."

I'm not pointing out that they share the same favorite color; I'm pointing out that they share a lot of the same rhetoric based on your mutually shared axiomatic values. I'm also not saying that [person x] is a terrorist, but that they're more inclined to become one of those people shooting at our Men over in Iraq and Afghanistan than to become a Tea Party member.

Its an invalid tactic meant to do nothing but smear and discredit through associated views

Good Lord, that's a piss-poor analogy. You really can't do any better?

You'd have to make a strong case that Osama bin Laden and liberals (speaking of modern liberals along Rawlsian lines, not classical liberals), start from shared moral conceptual axioms. Since Osama bin Laden and his ideology represent a conservative pan-Arab nationalist and pan-Sunni Islamist perspective that is in very fundamental conflicts with leftist beliefs about sexual egalitarianism and social freedoms, I don't think you'd be able to do so. Even occasional ideological match-ups, such as those that occur between liberals and libertarians on social issues, aren't evidence of a shared framework of common principles.

On the contrary, I've explained in great detail why the authoritarian facets of social conservatism facilitate evolution into white supremacist views. The underlying conceptual framework is the same. Selecting views that you consider to be commonly held by leftists or libertarians and ignoring the slight conflicts between their views on women's rights, for example, won't work, because shared moral frameworks mean that there will typically be bundles of common views held. That's why we don't tend to find pro-life, pro same-sex marriage, anti death-penalty, anti-welfare, pro-war people, though there are exceptions to rules. George Lakoff says this about the "Strict Father" view of social programs, for example:

Conservatives...apply the Strict Father model of parenting to the Nation as Family metaphor. To them, social programs amount to coddling people - spoiling them. Instead of having to learn to fend for themselves, people can depend on the public cole. This makes them morally weak, removing the need for self-discipline and willpower. Such moral weakness is a form of immorality. And so, conservatives see social programs as immoral, affirmative action included.

For myself, personally, I can't stand the current welfare system (mixed with Affirmative Action.) All a Black person has to do is become pregnant to get welfare, but my own step-mother was denied welfare at one point in her life, and she had two kids of her own. It was because she was White. In other aspects of the welfare system, I can't stand. A large proportion of the people on welfare (which is, again, mostly black in itself) are using money that the government gives them to go out and buy a dime back of rock instead of providing for their children. These children, unguided by their parents, are the current young Black generation. A lot of them act like thugs, a lot are involved in crime, a lot have hatred and jealousy for White's who have never laid a finger on them, and this could all be solved by a few, easy measures.

* Mandatory drug testing. If you test positive, you lose your money and your kids. None of that government paid recovery and treatment bull-crap, you find out the hard way. One strike, you're out.
* Eliminating racial quotas for welfare, but enforcing a strict rule that illegal immigrants are not allowed to receive welfare.
* There needs to be a maximum amount of time for being on welfare. It's understandable if you have a disability and will be dependent on welfare for your life, that I can live with. But have you guys seen the movie Precious? That mother sat on the couch all day, beat her daughter, even let her husband rape the daughter, and pretended to be looking for a job. It's a crooked system, and people will take advantage of it. 2 years in your lifetime should be sufficient, and I don't mean consecutively. That's 24 months of your life where the government will send you a check, enough to supply food and water and appliances.
* Convicted Felons will not be allowed to have welfare.
* Government agents on your behind, 24/7. They will walk you into Burger King to get a job if they have to.

I know this sounds like a lot of government interference, but welfare will never be abolished, and it's better to make reforms that will better all of America.

Lakoff writes this about the Moral Order, which guides the conceptualization process of social conservatives.

Many of the clauses in the Moral Order correspond to forms of bigotry:

The racist clause: Since the dominant culture has been white, whites rank above nonwhites.

The anti-Semitic clause: Since the dominant culture is Christian, Christians rank above Jews.

The jingoist clause: Since this is an American culture where people born here have more power and status than immigrants, those born American rank above immigrants.

The homophobe clause: Since heterosexuality is dominant in our culture and homosexuals are stereotyped as weak, heterosexuals rank above homosexuals.

The superpatriot clause: Since America is the dominant country (the only superpower), America ranks above other countries.

If your conceptual system contains the Moral Order metaphor, as it will if you accept Strict Father morality, then your conceptual system contains the framework into which such clauses could fit; and indeed, historically those clauses were present in the conceptual frameworks of many Americans. There was a time when they were all as American as apple pie. Many Americans have since dropped them, though they are still very much present for many others.

It is important to bear in mind that these define a "moral order." Those higher in the moral order are "better" and have a moral authority over those lower in the hierarchy. So, for instance, if all these clauses are in your hierarchy, and if you happen to be a heterosexual white Christian American man, you are "better" than most people in the world.

ProtestWarrior founders Kfir Alfia and Alan Lipton provided a very good summary of exactly what Lakoff is referring to in their book A Field Guide to Left-Wing Wackos. Contrasting the "Employed White Male" with the "Blacktivists" and "Islamothugs," they wrote this:

Employed White Males were the original American protesters, rabble-rousers, and revolutionaries, who understood the necessity of collective action to secure their freedoms. When the British began to levy arbitrarily higher taxes on their North American colonies, the progenitors of this species - whose professions ranged from lawyers to judges to businessmen, merchants, shippers, land and securities speculators, farmers, scientists, physicians, and ministers - organized together to form a nation based on the inalienable rights of man. In a letter to his wife, Abigail, John Adams spoke of his future Employed White Male descendants: "I must study politics and war that my sons may have liberty to study mathematics and philosophy." And his descendants proceeded to do just that, building the most industrious and wealthy nation on the planet, earning the envy and scorn of the rest of the world.

As the leftist philosophies of nihilism and relativism began to dominate the late twentieth century, the undeniable achievements of the Employed White Males enraged feminists, Communists, and Islamic fundamentalists everywhere. Bound by the myopic view of cultural egalitarianism, the left insisted that Employed White Males not only did not contribute anything special to civilization, but in fact have caused more damage to the world than all other groups combined. And thus the Employed White Male was blamed for racism, pollution, world poverty, oppression, and every other wrong in the world. Today, he quietly carries this burden, too innocent to fully understand or be bothered by the contempt for his achievements.

That's the perspective on Stormfront. The white male is virtuous, hard-working and productive, and is hated by egalitarians who want to redistribute his earned wealth to the lazy and less skilled racial minorities, and viciously demonize him doing so.